Intelligence is a matter of luck and arguably neuro-divergent. Most humans are incapable of interest in science or anything beyond emotional affirmation. They lack the mental toolkit to be more than drones. Anyone doubting this should consider what Mencken called the booboisie reward with power.

The parasite load of disinformation further ensures only true, dedicated SMEs are able to parse what's on offer. Journals should be considered individual and corporate advertisements no better than Youtube videos similarly designed to monetize the masses.

The demise of effective primary school education in the US (I cannot speak to other countries) is generally irreversible because the beastmob elect or elect people who appoint local boards of education.

Useful education is mostly to be found in specialized college programs but many colleges are diploma mills. Community colleges are largely high school refreshers outside core curricula (the one I worked for had to teach adults how to read a tape measure and other skills once taught in grade school).

Chronological order is an algorithm too, along with *any* method you use to present things. So... yeah, your argument is literally nonsense.

Please see my reply to your other post that was basically this same exact comment....

TY

promoted means something different to published though I think, it's more active

Both promoted/published require active action by the corporation/company to move what information they want out in front of "eyes" and suppress information they do not want seen.

With online content, it's promoted...in written/printed form...same thing, but its term is published.

This is in general....sure you can "publish" things online...but we're just playing with semantics and synonyms for the same thoughts and actions here.

So you want government intervention on social media algorithms?

We already do...the govt is giving 230 protection where it should not.

It needs to go back and set it to where you get 230 if you as a company do not use algorithms to push or suppression content, do not push content to people, but let them select.

Basically to get the corporate "thumb" off the scales of information flow...

Otherwise, they can still do it....they just don't get 230 protections since they are not publishers and editorializing......which is what they are currently doing.

Hey, you do know that "Chronological order" is an algorithm right? Any method of presenting *things* is going to require an algorithm. Always.

ok....but you know what I'm talking about when I say social media companies' "algorithms".

I'm sure we could come up with some wording that would work...and allow simple things like "order by date posted"...etc.

Perhaps only allow controls on the screen that allow the USER to decide how to sort, what to see, etc?

The main problem, is the social media provider, using complex algorithms, pushing content to people, suppressing some and enhancing others, often based on the political bent of the top leadership of the company.

I'm guessing we could come up with some legal speak to properly regulate this....good way, you keep 230 protections, bad way....no 230 protections for you.

In the end, this turns all the online forums more into the "public square" that the founders had the concept of in the early days of the US, a place where all could speak freely....

Private corporate censorship is right up there with govt censorship, except the govt has guns and can take your freedom away....corporate is just a bit less than that, but not much considering how much control the have on the flow of information.

Facebook does not choose what users post,

No..the algorithms DO.

And FB is in charge of the algorithms...hence they have their thumb on the scales, determining what gets seen or promoted and what doesn't....

Opinionated Moderation was specifically the goal. What we have, was the goal.

If that were the case, then...that needs to be changed.

It should read more like the OP in this thread was describing.

No, that would eliminate any sort of specialized forum if it wasn't allowed to moderate any content aside from that was illegal. They'd get overrun with spam and off-topic discussion

I think this is all talking about "open forums"....if it is a specialized forum...membership is required and can be revoked.

As long as it is not algorithm run....this way we keep the provider from putting a thumb on the scales of any content or conversation, hence no editorial work.

The members of each forum could have the power....not the provider.

I believe the legislation could be written in such a way as to allow this type set up.....

f you hold tech companies legally responsible for the content their users produce, they will *shut down* the ability for those users to produce content.

How about this...

You get to keep 230 protections, and take out the algorithms pushing content to users, and aside from speech that is illegal (CP,etc)...you don't censor things.

If you use an algo to promote some content over others, and editorialize on what is allowed to be published...then you lose 230 and are treated like a publisher.

Simple, no?

Looking at the Chatgpt 4o for the iPhone.

How safe is it to install this app on your phone...does it 'invade' and grab info on your phone like your contacts, pictures.....read through your mail, etc?

Life's too short to waste that much of it on merely money.

The MORE money you have...the less time you have to waste a work.....

So Intel is inventing new definitions of flops? How about bitcoin flops ?

(Emphasis mine) I'm saying this without malice, so please don't take it that way: But who are you to decide what the appropriate amount of extracurricular interaction between co-workers is? You have a system that works for you, and that's perfectly fine. There are quite a few of my colleagues that I've never seen outside of the office. A bunch of them that are all but guaranteed to show up at a team/company instigated happy hour. And a small handful that I consider friends. Hell, I spent my weekend in a boat fishing with a former co-worker that I now consider a good friend.

I'm not saying your method is wrong, I'm saying that it's not the only one available, and not the only one that's appropriate.

I think you missed the part where I said "almost without exception"....

;)

I have had a VERY few that I socialized at all with outside of work...I could count likely on 1 hand and not come close to using all of my fingers.

There's exceptions to every rule...BUT, in general, I stick by that it is best to keep most if not all co-workers just in that category...and not confide in them like a true friend, not to get involved with them in their outside lives, nor hav them in your business...

This is especially true of the opposite sex, and these days, as a guy, I'd say you are in HIGH danger zone of befriending or being close at all with any female.

It only takes them getting pissed at you once and throwing a complaint to HR and *BAM*...no jury, no trial, you are gone and your reputation is almost surely to be permanently smeared, and that's if you're lucky enough to get away without any legal entanglements.

The work environment hasn't always been this toxic...I'm an old guy and I know...but I've seen how bad it has gotten, especially in the last decade.

But hey...you do you.

But I say, if you want to keep your W2 job...and progress..keep your head down, keep co-workers compartmentalized as they are, and every once in awhile, change jobs to get a decent pay boost.